DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 were elected and claims 17-26 have been added and are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 17-19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalteziotis.
Referring to claim 1: Kalteziotis teaches a plurality of reinforcement units, disposed along a first direction, each of the reinforcement units comprising: a first stirrup (item 57), which is substantially rectangular and comprises a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein the first side is opposite to the third side, and the second side is opposite to the fourth side; at least one second stirrup (item 58), configured to be connected to the first side and the third side of the first stirrup; and at least one third stirrup (item 56), configured to be connected to the second side and the fourth side of the first stirrup and being substantially perpendicular to and fixed to the at least one second stirrup; and a plurality of main bars (item 85), extending along the first direction, through the plurality of reinforcement units, and being fixed to the first side, the second side, the third side and the fourth side of the first stirrup of each of the plurality of reinforcement units.
Referring to claim 2: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the second stirrup of the reinforcement unit is a substantially rectangular structure formed by bending a single steel bar and comprises a substantially elongated rectangular structure therein, wherein two ends of the bent single steel bar respectively form a first hook and a second hook, and wherein the first hook is located at a corner of the rectangular structure and bent toward an inner side of the second stirrup, and the second hook is located within the elongated rectangular structure, wherein a bending direction of the first hook is different from a bending direction of the second hook (figure 8b).
Referring to claim 6: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the third stirrup of the reinforcement unit is a substantially elongated rectangular structure formed by bending a single steel bar, wherein two ends of the bent single steel bar respectively form a third hook and a fourth hook, and wherein the third hook and the fourth hook are located at a corner of the third stirrup and are next to each other, and wherein the third hook and the fourth hook are configured to substantially hook the main bars enclosed by the first stirrup and fixed to the second side or the fourth side of the first stirrup (figure 8b).
Referring to claim 17: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the first stirrup forms an outer contour of each of the reinforcement units and defines a size and a shape of the reinforcement unit (figure 8b).
Referring to claim 18: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the plurality of reinforcement units are arranged parallel to each other substantially along the first direction (figure 6).
Referring to claim 19: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the at least one second stirrup is substantially perpendicular to the first side and the third side of the first stirrup (figure 8b).
Referring to claim 23: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the first stirrup is formed by bending a single steel bar such that the first side, the second side, the third side, and the fourth side are integrally formed (figure 8b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalteziotis.
Referring to claim 4: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Kalteziotis does not teach the first hook and the second hook of the second stirrup are configured to hook the main bars enclosed by the first stirrup and fixed to the first side or the third side of the first stirrup in the embodiment of figure 8b. However, Kalteziotis teaches the first hook and the second hook of the second stirrup are configured to hook the main bars enclosed by the first stirrup and fixed to the first side or the third side of the first stirrup (replace item 58 with item 60 from figure 9b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device of Kalteziotis with the substituted element 60 in order to secure additional main bars since the embodiments of the disclosure are obvious variants of each other usable together.
Referring to claim 5: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches wherein the third stirrup surrounds at least two of the main bars, which are enclosed by the first stirrup and fixed to the second side of the first stirrup, and surrounds at least two of the main bars, which are enclosed by the first stirrup and fixed to the fourth side of the first stirrup (figure 8b). Kalteziotis does not teach a length of the first side or the third side of the first stirrup is greater than a length of the second side or the fourth side of the first stirrup in the embodiment of 8b. however, Kalteziotis teaches a length of the first side or the third side of the first stirrup is greater than a length of the second side or the fourth side of the first stirrup in the embodiment of 8a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Kalteziotis and replace the first stirrup with a rectangular one as taught by a different embodiment in order to provide a column of rectangular shape instead of square.
Referring to claim 24: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kalteziotis teaches the reinforcement cage is for a shear wall (Abstract) but does not teach it is configure of an end structural member of a shear wall. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the reinforcement cage of Kalteziotis at any location in a shear wall that allows for strengthening of the wall against undesirable stress.
Referring to claim 26: Kalteziotis teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Kalteziotis does not teach a length of the first side of the first stirrup is approximately 2400 mm, and a length of the second side of the first stirrup is approximately 1200 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cage of Kalteziotis to any specific dimensions to fit within a specific application to provide strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 20-22, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635